Blueline tilefish, Golden tilefish

Transcription

1 Blueline tilefish, Golden tilefish Caulolatilus microps, Lopholatilus chamaeleonticeps Image Duane Raver US Atlantic Bottom longline, Handline November 17, 2014 Kelsey James, Consulting researcher Disclaimer Seafood Watch strives to ensure all our Seafood Reports and the recommendations contained therein are accurate and reflect the most up-to-date evidence available at time of publication. All our reports are peerreviewed for accuracy and completeness by external scientists with expertise in ecology, fisheries science or aquaculture. Scientific review; however, does not constitute an endorsement of the Seafood Watch program or its recommendations on the part of the reviewing scientists. Seafood Watch is solely responsible for the conclusions reached in this report. We always welcome additional or updated data that can be used for the next revision. Seafood Watch and Seafood Reports are made possible through a grant from the David and Lucile Packard Foundation

2 2 About Seafood Watch Monterey Bay Aquarium s Seafood Watch program evaluates the ecological sustainability of wildcaught and farmed seafood commonly found in the United States marketplace. Seafood Watch defines sustainable seafood as originating from sources, whether wild-caught or farmed, which can maintain or increase production in the long-term without jeopardizing the structure or function of affected ecosystems. Seafood Watch makes its science-based recommendations available to the public in the form of regional pocket guides that can be downloaded from The program s goals are to raise awareness of important ocean conservation issues and empower seafood consumers and businesses to make choices for healthy oceans. Each sustainability recommendation on the regional pocket guides is supported by a Seafood Report. Each report synthesizes and analyzes the most current ecological, fisheries and ecosystem science on a species, then evaluates this information against the program s conservation ethic to arrive at a recommendation of Best Choices, Good Alternatives or Avoid. The detailed evaluation methodology is available upon request. In producing the Seafood Reports, Seafood Watch seeks out research published in academic, peer-reviewed journals whenever possible. Other sources of information include government technical publications, fishery management plans and supporting documents, and other scientific reviews of ecological sustainability. Seafood Watch Research Analysts also communicate regularly with ecologists, fisheries and aquaculture scientists, and members of industry and conservation organizations when evaluating fisheries and aquaculture practices. Capture fisheries and aquaculture practices are highly dynamic; as the scientific information on each species changes, Seafood Watch s sustainability recommendations and the underlying Seafood Reports will be updated to reflect these changes. Parties interested in capture fisheries, aquaculture practices and the sustainability of ocean ecosystems are welcome to use Seafood Reports in any way they find useful. For more information about Seafood Watch and Seafood Reports, please contact the Seafood Watch program at Monterey Bay Aquarium by calling

3 3 Guiding Principles Seafood Watch defines sustainable seafood as originating from sources, whether fished 1 or farmed, that can maintain or increase production in the long-term without jeopardizing the structure or function of affected ecosystems. Based on this principle, Seafood Watch had developed four sustainability criteria for evaluating wildcatch fisheries for consumers and businesses. These criteria are: How does fishing affect the species under assessment? How does the fishing affect other, target and non-target species? How effective is the fishery s management? How does the fishing affect habitats and the stability of the ecosystem? Each criterion includes: Factors to evaluate and score Guidelines for integrating these factors to produce a numerical score and rating Once a rating has been assigned to each criterion, we develop an overall recommendation. Criteria ratings and the overall recommendation are color-coded to correspond to the categories on the Seafood Watch pocket guide and online guide: Best Choice/Green: Are well managed and caught in ways that cause little harm to habitats or other wildlife. Good Alternative/Yellow: Buy, but be aware there are concerns with how they re caught. Avoid/Red: Take a pass on these for now. These items are overfished or caught in ways that harm other marine life or the environment. 1 Fish is used throughout this document to refer to finfish, shellfish and other invertebrates.

4 4 Summary This report addresses golden tilefish (Lopholatilus chamaeleonticeps) fished in the US Mid-Atlantic, Southeast Atlantic, and Gulf of Mexico, and blueline tilefish (Caulolatilus microps) in the US Southeast Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico. Both species are commercially fished with bottom longlines in all areas, while handlines are used for both species in the Southeast Atlantic and for blueline tilefish in the Gulf of Mexico. Both golden and blueline tilefish have medium inherent vulnerabilities based on their life history characters. The abundance and fishing mortality of golden tilefish in all three regions is of very low concern based on the presence of a stock assessment for each region stating that the stock is not overfished (and abundance is above the target level) and overfishing is not occurring, except for the fishing mortality on golden tilefish in the Gulf of Mexico. This region ranked of low concern based on stock assessment model uncertainty. Blueline tilefish on the other hand lacks a stock assessment in the Gulf of Mexico, which results in a moderate concern for both the abundance and fishing mortality. The blueline tilefish stock assessment for the South Atlantic shows that the abundance is below target and limit reference points, and the fishing mortality is above target and limit reference points. However, for the abundance there is an amendment in review that seeks to change the minimum stock size threshold (MSST) for species that have low natural mortality like blueline tilefish. This new amendment changes the blueline tilefish abundance to below the target reference point, but above the limit reference point, but until this amendment is approved, blueline tilefish in the South Atlantic have a high concern score. The South Atlantic Fishery Management Council (SAFMC) has put forth another amendment to reduce the fishing mortality, but its effects would not be as immediate; therefore the blueline tilefish fishing mortality score remains of high concern. The main species for each fishery were determined based on the percent that each species represented the total fishery s catch. The data to determine main species for the South Atlantic and the Gulf of Mexico are from small sets of observer data of the tilefish fisheries in these areas and include at-risk species that are managed with the tilefish species or are endangered. Data for the Mid-Atlantic are from catch disposition from from Maine, though Virginia Dusky smoothhound, red snapper, snowy grouper, southern hake, and yellowedge grouper composed more than 5 percent of the total fishery catch for those fisheries they were included. Loggerhead turtles are threatened according to the Endangered Species Act (ESA), while speckled hind, and warsaw grouper are critically endangered according to the IUCN Red List. Speckled hind and Warsaw grouper are not included in golden tilefish fisheries based on habitat differences, but are included in the blueline tilefish fisheries based on distribution overlap. Warsaw grouper is not included in the South Atlantic blueline tilefish fishery based on low overlap of distribution; most of the blueline tilefish catch is from North Carolina, while the distribution of Warsaw grouper is more southern. Red grouper was greater than 5 percent of the total fishery catch in the Gulf of Mexico; however, it is the main target of shallow water longlines while both golden and blueline tilefish are targets of deep water longlines and; therefore not included in this

5 5 report. The Seafood Watch report on grouper has a more extensive list of bycatch species because fishing occurs in both shallow and deep waters. Bottom longline and handline fisheries in the Mid- Atlantic, Southeast Atlantic, and Gulf of Mexico are category 3 fisheries under the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA; remote likelihood of/no known interactions) according to the list of fisheries compiled to determine the level of interactions between the fishery and marine mammals. In the Mid- Atlantic there are no major bycatch species so the longline fishery for golden tilefish receives a score of 5.0. In the South Atlantic golden tilefish fishery very little bycatch occurs, only southern hake, which has little biological information available about it. In the South Atlantic blueline tilefish fisheries the lowest scoring bycatch species is the speckled hind due to its high inherent vulnerability, very high concern for abundance, and high fishing mortality. The Gulf of Mexico handline and longline fishery for blueline tilefish have Warsaw grouper as the lowest scoring species. The golden tilefish Gulf of Mexico longline fishery has loggerhead turtle as the lowest scoring species based on its listing on the Endangered Species Act. Golden tilefish fished in the Mid-Atlantic is excellently managed and have no significant bycatch. Golden and blueline tilefish fished in the Gulf of Mexico is well-managed with moderate bycatch species management. These scores are driven by the lack of stock assessment for blueline tilefish and the unknown and critically endangered status of some of the bycatch species. The South Atlantic fisheries are the worst scoring as far as management goes. The management of both golden and blueline in the South Atlantic is well-managed, but the bycatch species are moderate. These scores are driven by the lack of monitoring of bycatch species. Both handline and longline fisheries over soft sediments have low or very low impact on the substrate. Most fisheries have moderate mitigation of the impacts on the habitat based on depth and area restrictions. The Mid-Atlantic bottom longline and the Gulf of Mexico handline fisheries only have minimal mitigation because the fishing is not actively being reduced. The ecosystem-based fishery management is of moderate concern for all the fisheries because both golden and blueline tilefish are exceptional species since they modify habitat; plans are being developed or exist, but do not substantially protect the tilefish species. Table of Conservation s and Overall Recommendations Stock / Fishery Golden tilefish United States US Mid Atlantic - Longline, Bottom Golden tilefish United States Southeast Atlantic - Longline, Bottom Impacts on the Stock Impacts on other Spp. Management Habitat and Ecosystem Overall Recommendation Green (3.83) Green (5.00) Green (5.00) Yellow (3.12) Best Choice (4.159) Green (5.00) Yellow (3.15) Green (3.46) Green (3.74) Best Choice (3.781)

6 6 Golden tilefish Green (5.00) Green (3.32) Green (3.46) Green (4.24) Best Choice (3.952) United States Southeast Atlantic - Handline Golden tilefish United States GOM - Longline, Bottom Green (4.28) Red (1.45) Green (3.46) Green (3.74) Good Alternative (2.996) Blueline tilefish Red (1.41) Red (0.95) Yellow (3.00) Green (3.74) Avoid (1.971) United States South Atlantic - Longline, Bottom Blueline tilefish Yellow Red (0.95) Green (3.46) Green (3.74) Good Alternative United States Gulf of Mexico (2.64) (2.389) - Longline, Bottom Blueline tilefish Red (1.41) Red (0.95) Yellow (3.00) Green (4.24) Avoid (2.033) United States South Atlantic - Handline Blueline tilefish Yellow Red (0.95) Green (3.46) Green (4.12) Good Alternative United States Gulf of Mexico (2.64) (2.447) - Handline Scoring Guide Scores range from zero to five where zero indicates very poor performance and five indicates the fishing operations have no significant impact. Final Score = geometric mean of the four Scores (Criterion 1, Criterion 2, Criterion 3, Criterion 4). Best Choice/Green = Final Score >3.2, and no Red Criteria, and no Critical scores Good Alternative/Yellow = Final score >2.2, and neither Harvest Strategy (Factor 3.1) nor Bycatch Management Strategy (Factor 3.2) are Very High, 2 and no more than one Red Criterion, and no Critical scores, and does not meet the criteria for Best Choice (above) Avoid/Red = Final Score <=2.2, or either Harvest Strategy (Factor 3.1) or Bycatch Management Strategy (Factor 3.2) is Very High, 2 or two or more Red Criteria, or one or more Critical scores. 2 Because effective management is an essential component of sustainable fisheries, Seafood Watch issues an Avoid recommendation for any fishery scored as a Very High for either factor under Management (Criterion 3).

8 8 Introduction Scope of the analysis and ensuing recommendation This report addresses golden tilefish (Lopholatilus chamaeleonticeps) fished in the US Mid-Atlantic, Southeast Atlantic, and Gulf of Mexico, and blueline tilefish (Caulolatilus microps) in the US Southeast Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico. Both species are commercially fished with bottom longlines in all areas, while handlines are used for both species in the Southeast Atlantic and for blueline tilefish in the Gulf of Mexico. Overview of the species and management bodies Golden tilefish (Lopholatilus chamaeleonticeps) are found in the Western Atlantic from Nova Scotia, Canada through Florida, into the Gulf of Mexico and the northern coast of South America (Dooley 1978). Golden tilefish are a deep water species most common in waters 9 14 ºC over steep slopes with clay, mud, and sand substrates at depths of 80 to 440 m (Dooley 1978; Nitschke 2006). In the Mid-Atlantic, females attain 110 cm total length (TL) and 46 years of age, while males attain 112 cm TL and 39 years of age (Nitschke 2006). Sexual maturity is attained between 5 and 7 years (Grimes et al. 1988). In both the South Atlantic and the Gulf of Mexico the oldest individual was 40 years old (SEDAR 2011a; SEDAR 2011c). Age at sexual maturity was estimated at age 3 in the South Atlantic and age 2 in the Gulf of Mexico (SEDAR 2011a; SEDAR 2011c). Golden tilefish are managed by three agencies: the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council (MAFMC) from the northern extent of the US range to North Carolina, the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council (SAFMC) from North Carolina to the southern tip of Florida, and the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council (GMFMC) from the southern tip of Florida to the western extent of the US range in the Gulf of Mexico. In the Mid-Atlantic a fishery management plan (FMP) was implemented for tilefish in 2001 where the catch never exceeded the annual catch limit (ACL), since implementation and management switched to an individual fishing quota (IFQ) program starting in 2009 (MAFMC 2013). In the South Atlantic, golden tilefish are managed with an ACL, which has been exceeded every year since 2006 (SERO 2014a). Here, golden tilefish are included in the snapper grouper FMP that was implemented in 1983 (SEDAR 2011c). In the Gulf of Mexico an FMP was implemented in 1984 for reef fishes with a switch to an IFQ system for golden tilefish in 2010 (SEDAR 2011a; GMFMC 2013d). Blueline tilefish (Caulolatilus microps) are found from Virginia, USA through the Gulf of Mexico, and are frequently found in the same habitat as deep water grouper and snapper ( m; Dooley 1978). Blueline tilefish attain 90 cm fork length and 43 years of age (SEDAR 2013c). Fifty percent maturity occurs at 3 years of age for females in the South Atlantic (SEDAR 2013c). The biology of blueline tilefish in the Gulf of Mexico is not well studied. Blueline tilefish are managed by the SAFMC from North Carolina to the southern tip of Florida and the GMFMC from the southern tip of Florida to the western extent of the US range in the Gulf of Mexico. In the South Atlantic, blueline tilefish are managed in the deep water complex with an ACL (SERO 2014a).

9 9 The deep water complex includes yellowedge grouper (Epinephelus niveatus), blueline tilefish, silk snapper (Lutjanus vivanus), misty grouper (Epinephelus mystacinus), queen snapper (Etelis oculatus), sand tilefish (Malacanthus plumieri), black snapper (Lutjanus griseus), and blackfin snapper (Lutjanus buccanella; SERO 2014a). Blueline tilefish are included in the snapper grouper FMP that was implemented in 1983 (SEDAR 2011c). In the Gulf of Mexico, blueline tilefish were added to the reef fish FMP in 1990 (SEDAR 2011a). Blueline tilefish were recorded in commercial catch starting in 1992; prior to this they were combined with golden tilefish landings (SEDAR 2011a). In 2010 an IFQ system was implemented where blueline tilefish are managed only with other tilefish species (GMFMC 2013d). Production Statistics The Mid-Atlantic lands the most golden tilefish of any region, followed by the South Atlantic and the Gulf of Mexico. Montauk, New York is the largest port in the Mid-Atlantic landing 640 MT in 2012 (NOAA 2014). The South Atlantic lands more blueline tilefish than the Gulf of Mexico (Figure 2, Figure 3, Figure 4, Figure 5 NOAA 2014). North Carolina has the largest landings of blueline tilefish at MT in 2012 (NOAA 2014). Landings of golden and blueline tilefish have only been separated by species since 1992; therefore species-specific landings reported prior to this are uncertain (SEDAR 2011a). Global landings of all tilefish species increased in the early 2000s and have been relatively steady since around 50,000 MT (Figure 6; FAO 2014). Table 1. Landings in metric tons (MT) for golden and blueline tilefish in the Mid-Atlantic, South Atlantic, and Gulf of Mexico from Montauk, New York is the largest port in the Mid-Atlantic landing 640 MT in 2012 (NOAA 2014). The South Atlantic lands more blueline tilefish than the Gulf of Mexico (NOAA 2014). North Carolina has the largest landings of blueline tilefish at MT in 2012 (NOAA 2014). Landings of golden and blueline tilefish have been separated by species since 1992; therefore species-specific landings reported prior to this are uncertain (SEDAR 2011a). Global landings of all tilefish species increased in the early 2000s and has been relatively steady since, around 50,000 MT.

10 10 Figure 1. Landings of golden tilefish in the Mid-Atlantic by gear from 1962 to Figure 2. Landings of blueline tilefish in the South Atlantic by gear from 1985 to Gears that composed less than 1 % of the total landings were excluded (gillnets, bottom trawl, and pots and traps).

11 11 Figure 3. Landings of golden tilefish in the South Atlantic by gear from 1973 to Gears that composed less than 1 % of the total landings were excluded (rod and reel, troll lines, and bottom trawl). Figure 4. Golden tilefish landings in the Gulf of Mexico by gear and area from

12 12 Figure 5. Blueline tilefish landings in the Gulf of Mexico by gear and area from Figure 6. Global production of all tilefish species from Europe had zero landings until (FAO 2014).

13 13 Importance to the US/North American market There are neither import nor export data included in the National Marine Fisheries (NMFS) foreign trade database for these species. Common and market names The two most common names for Lopholatilus chamaeleonticeps are the golden tilefish and tilefish. Other common names include golden bass, golden snapper, great northern tilefish, and rainbow tilefish (Fishwatch 2014). Caulolatilus microps is most often referred to as blueline tilefish. An alternate common name is gray tilefish (SAFMC 2014a). Primary product forms Golden and blueline tilefish are available fresh or frozen.

15 15 Both golden and blueline tilefish have medium inherent vulnerabilities based on their life history characters. The abundance and fishing mortality of golden tilefish in all three regions is of very low concern based on the presence of a stock assessment for each region stating that the stock is not overfished (and abundance is above the target level) and overfishing is not occurring, except for the fishing mortality on golden tilefish in the Gulf of Mexico. This region ranked of low concern based on stock assessment model uncertainty. Blueline tilefish on the other hand lacks a stock assessment in Gulf of Mexico which results in a moderate concern for both the abundance and fishing mortality. The blueline tilefish stock assessment for the South Atlantic shows that the abundance is below target and limit reference points and the fishing mortality is above target and limit reference points. However, for the abundance there is an amendment in review that seeks to change the minimum stock size threshold (MSST) for species that have low natural mortality like blueline tilefish. This new amendment changes the blueline tilefish abundance to below the target reference point, but above the limit reference point, but until this Amendment is approved blueline tilefish in the South Atlantic have a high concern score. The South Atlantic Fishery Management Council (SAFMC) has put forth another amendment to reduce the fishing mortality, but its effects would not be as immediate; therefore the blueline tilefish fishing mortality score remains of high concern. Criterion 1 Assessment BLUELINE TILEFISH Factor Inherent Vulnerability Scoring Guidelines Low The FishBase vulnerability score for species is 0-35, OR species exhibits life history characteristics that make it resilient to fishing, (e.g., early maturing). Medium The FishBase vulnerability score for species is 36-55, OR species exhibits life history characteristics that make it neither particularly vulnerable nor resilient to fishing, (e.g., moderate age at sexual maturity (5-15 years), moderate maximum age (10-25 years), moderate maximum size, and middle of food chain). High The FishBase vulnerability score for species is , OR species exhibits life history characteristics that make is particularly vulnerable to fishing, (e.g., long-lived (>25 years), late maturing (>15 years), low reproduction rate, large body size, and top-predator). Note: The FishBase vulnerability scores is an index of the inherent vulnerability of marine fishes to fishing based on life history parameters: maximum length, age at first maturity, longevity, growth rate, natural mortality rate, fecundity, spatial behaviors (e.g., schooling, aggregating for breeding, or consistently returning to the same sites for feeding or reproduction) and geographic range.

16 16 United States Gulf of Mexico, Handline United States Gulf of Mexico, Longline, Bottom United States South Atlantic, Handline United States South Atlantic, Longline, Bottom Medium The inherent vulnerability of blueline tilefish, Caulolatilus microps, was assessed based on seven productivity attributes (Table 2). Blueline tilefish scored an average of which corresponds to a moderate inherent vulnearbility. Rationale: The vulnerability score was 58 out of 100 (Froese and Pauly 2014). This represents high inherent vulnerability; however, the life history attributes do not support this score; therefore a moderate score is used. Table 2. Productivity attributes of blueline tilefish. Factor Abundance Scoring Guidelines 5 (Very Low ) Strong evidence exists that the population is above target abundance level (e.g., biomass at maximum sustainable yield, BMSY) or near virgin biomass. 4 (Low ) Population may be below target abundance level, but it is considered not overfished 3 (Moderate ) Abundance level is unknown and the species has a low or medium inherent vulnerability to fishing.

17 17 2 (High ) Population is overfished, depleted, or a species of concern, OR abundance is unknown and the species has a high inherent vulnerability to fishing. 1 (Very High ) Population is listed as threatened or endangered. United States South Atlantic, Handline United States South Atlantic, Longline, Bottom High Current Abundance for blueline tilefish in the Southeast Atlantic is estimated as SSB 2011 /MSST (spawning stock biomass/minimum stock size threshold) = 0.909, which indicates that the stock is overfished (Figure 7; SEDAR 2013c). The spawning stock biomass in 2011 was estimated at 202 MT, while the SSB MSY (spawning stock biomass at maximum sustainable yield) was estimated at MT and the MSST was estimated at MT (SEDAR 2013c). A new amendment, Amendment 21, that is under review revises the MSST for select fishes including blueline tilefish based on their low (less than 0.25) natural mortality that disproportionately influences the biomass (SAFMC 2014g). Under this new amendment the new MSST of blueline tilefish in the Southeast Atlantic is MT which leads to a value of SSB 2011 /MSST of 1.09, which indicates that the stock is not overfished (SAFMC 2014g). Until the approval of Amendment 21, the blueline tilefish stock is below both the target (SSB MSY ) and limit (MSST) reference point; therefore the abundance is of high conservation concern. Rationale: Figure 7. Stock status (SSB/SSB MSY) of blueline tilefish in the South Atlantic. SSB/MSST at 1.0 is overfished threshold.

18 18 United States Gulf of Mexico, Handline United States Gulf of Mexico, Longline, Bottom Moderate There has been no stock assessment for blueline tilefish in the Gulf of Mexico and its overfished status is unknown. Its stock was discussed in the golden tilefish assessment, but it was determined that adequate data were unavailable for an assessment of blueline tilefish (SEDAR 2011a). Annual catch per unit effort (CPUE) was provided from (blueline tilefish were not reported in commercial landings prior to 1992), but CPUE values had high uncertainty and no trend in CPUE was detected over time (SEDAR 2011a). This could be because there is no trend in CPUE or that the trend cannot be detected from the available data. The uncertainty of CPUE is driven in part by low sample sizes (SEDAR 2011a). Since the status blueline tilefish is unknown and this species has a medium vulnerability to fishing, this factor is scored as moderate concern. Factor Fishing Mortality Scoring Guidelines 5 (Very Low ) Highly likely that fishing mortality is below a sustainable level (e.g., below fishing mortality at maximum sustainable yield, FMSY), OR fishery does not target species and its contribution to the mortality of species is negligible ( 5% of a sustainable level of fishing mortality) (Low ) Probable (>50%) chance that fishing mortality is at or below a sustainable level, but some uncertainty exists, OR fishery does not target species and does not adversely affect species, but its contribution to mortality is not negligible, OR fishing mortality is unknown, but the population is healthy and the species has a low susceptibility to the fishery (low chance of being caught) (Moderate ) Fishing mortality is fluctuating around sustainable levels, OR fishing mortality is unknown and species has a moderate-high susceptibility to the fishery and, if species is depleted, reasonable management is in place. 1 (High ) Overfishing is occurring, but management is in place to curtail overfishing, OR fishing mortality is unknown, species is depleted, and no management is in place. 0 (Critical) Overfishing is known to be occurring and no reasonable management is in place to curtail overfishing. United States South Atlantic, Handline United States South Atlantic, Longline, Bottom

19 19 High Fishing mortality in 2011 (F ) was 0.393, which was greater than fishing mortality at maximum sustainable yield (F MSY ; 0.302), which indicates that overfishing is occurring (Figure 8; SEDAR 2013c). The exploitation status (F 2011 /F MSY ) was estimated at 1.30 with a previous three year average ratio (F /F MSY ) of 2.37 (SEDAR 2013c). There is some uncertainty in this assessment (SEDAR 2013c) and a new amendment is in the works to reduce the fishing mortality of blueline tilefish in the coming years. At the current fishing mortality rate the abundance of blueline tilefish will continue to decline (Melvin 2013). Currently, blueline tilefish in the South Atlantic is experiencing overfishing; therefore the fishing mortality is of high concern. Rationale: Figure 8. Fishing mortality (F/F MSY) of blueline tilefish in the South Atlantic. F/F MSY of 1.0 is overfishing target. United States Gulf of Mexico, Handline United States Gulf of Mexico, Longline, Bottom Moderate There has been no stock assessment for blueline tilefish in the Gulf of Mexico and its overfished status is unknown (SEDAR 2011a; NMFS 2014a). However, its stock was discussed in the golden tilefish assessment, as these two species comprise the majority of the landings for the Gulf of Mexico tilefish Individual Fishing Quota (IFQ; SEDAR 2011a; GMFMC 2013d). Commercial landings are available from (blueline tilefish were not reported in commercial landings prior to 1992), and back calculated from golden tilefish landings for based on proportions of golden and blueline

20 20 landings from (SEDAR 2011a). Landings have been increasing over time (Figure 5), but have been highly variable from (SEDAR 2011a). Without reference points the overfishing status is unknown; therefore blueline tilefish in the Gulf of Mexico is of moderate concern. GOLDEN TILEFISH Factor Inherent Vulnerability Scoring Guidelines Low The FishBase vulnerability score for species is 0-35, OR species exhibits life history characteristics that make it resilient to fishing, (e.g., early maturing ( Medium The FishBase vulnerability score for species is 36-55, OR species exhibits life history characteristics that make it neither particularly vulnerable nor resilient to fishing, (e.g., moderate age at sexual maturity (5-15 years), moderate maximum age (10-25 years), moderate maximum size, and middle of food chain). High The FishBase vulnerability score for species is , OR species exhibits life history characteristics that make is particularly vulnerable to fishing, (e.g., long-lived (>25 years), late maturing (>15 years), low reproduction rate, large body size, and top-predator). Note: The FishBase vulnerability scores is an index of the inherent vulnerability of marine fishes to fishing based on life history parameters: maximum length, age at first maturity, longevity, growth rate, natural mortality rate, fecundity, spatial behaviors (e.g., schooling, aggregating for breeding, or consistently returning to the same sites for feeding or reproduction) and geographic range. United States GOM, Longline, Bottom United States Southeast Atlantic, Handline United States Southeast Atlantic, Longline, Bottom Medium The inherent vulnerability of golden tilefish, Lopholatilus chamaelonticeps, was assessed based on seven productivity attributes (Table 3). Golden tilefish in the Gulf of Mexico and the South Atlantic have slightly different age and growth parameters than those in the Mid-Atlantic. Golden tilefish scored an average of 2.0 which corresponds to a moderate inherent vulnerability. Rationale: The vulnerability score was 60 out of 100 (Froese and Pauly 2014). This represents

21 21 high inherent vulnerability; however, the life history attributes do not support this score; therefore a moderate score is used. Table 3. Productivity attributes of golden tilefish in the South Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico. United States US Mid Atlantic, Longline, Bottom Medium The inherent vulnerability of golden tilefish, Lopholatilus chamaelonticeps, was assessed based on seven productivity attributes (Table 4). Golden tilefish in the Mid-Atlantic have slightly different age and growth parameters than those in the Gulf of Mexico and South Atlantic. Golden tilefish scored an average of which corresponds to a moderate inherent vulnerability. Rationale: The vulnerability score was 60 out of 100 (Froese and Pauly 2014). This represents high inherent vulnerability; however, the life history attributes do not support this score, and therefore a moderate score is used. Table 4. Productivity attributes of golden tilefish in the Mid-Atlantic.

22 22 Factor Abundance Scoring Guidelines 5 (Very Low ) Strong evidence exists that the population is above target abundance level (e.g., biomass at maximum sustainable yield, BMSY) or near virgin biomass. 4 (Low ) Population may be below target abundance level, but it is considered not overfished. 3 (Moderate ) Abundance level is unknown and the species has a low or medium inherent vulnerability to fishing. 2 (High ) Population is overfished, depleted, or a species of concern, OR abundance is unknown and the species has a high inherent vulnerability to fishing. 1 (Very High ) Population is listed as threatened or endangered. United States US Mid Atlantic, Longline, Bottom Low According to the 2014 age-structured assessment model (ASAP) which incorporates length and age data, the stock of golden tilefish in the Mid-Atlantic is not overfished and above the target reference point (Figure 10; SAW 2014). The estimated SSB was 5,229 MT in 2012, which is 101% of the target reference point (SSB MSY proxy = SSB 25% ) of 5,153 MT and much greater than the limit reference point (1/2SSB 25% ) of 2,577 MT (SAW 2014). The stock is considered rebuilt. The previous stock assessment from 2009 also agrees that the stock is not overfished and the abundance is above the target reference point (SAW 2009). The NMFS Summary of Stock Statuses, which was written before the publication of the 2014 stock assessment, does not consider this stock rebuilt, but does consider it to be rebuilding and not overfished (NMFS 2014a). Although abundance is above the accepted target biomass (SSB 25% ) and is considered rebuilt, appropriate biomass target reference points should generally not be lower than B MSY or approximately B 35 B40%. Target reference points below about B 35% require strong scientific rationale. Based on the 2014 stock assessment, biomass reference points are justified based on the stock showing no recent decline or collapse under the constant quota management in place since In addition, estimates of uncertainty are not provided for the current target (SSB 25% ; SARC 2014). Given that abundance is just above the accepted target reference point with uncertainty estimates unavailable, it is probable that abundance is below the level of an appropriate target reference point. The limit reference point is valid, and the stock is above its limit reference point. Although the recent stock assessment declared that the stock is not overfished and abundance is minimally above the target reference point (SSB 25% ), abundance scores as "low concern" because abundance is likely below an appropriate target reference point (>or= to B 35% or SSB 35% ). Rationale:

23 23 Figure 10. Stock status of golden tilefish in the Mid-Atlantic from The dashed lines represent the 90% confidence interval while the red line is the estimated target reference point SSB MSY. Adapted from SAW United States Southeast Atlantic, Handline United States Southeast Atlantic, Longline, Bottom Very Low Golden tilefish in the US Southeast Atlantic is not overfished (Figure 9; SEDAR 2011c). SSB in 2010 was estimated at 54.8 MT, which is above both the limit/overfished abundance reference point (MSST = 22.6) and the target reference point (SSBMSY = 25.3 MT ; SEDAR 2011c). Because abundance is above the target level abundance is scored as very low concern. Rationale:

24 24 Figure 9. Stock status (SSB/SSBmsy) of golden tilefish in the South Atlantic. SSB/SSBmsy of 1.0 is overfished target. United States GOM, Longline, Bottom Very Low In the Gulf of Mexico golden tilefish is not overfished (SEDAR 2011a). Reference points were calculated with two methods to represent between-model-uncertainty (SEDAR 2011a). The SSB in 2009 was estimated at 28, and 35, pounds (lbs) of gonad weight, which was much higher than the SSB of fishing mortality at 30% of the spawning potential ratio (SSB SPR30% ; a target reference point): 14, and 17, lbs (SEDAR 2011a). The SSB was also above the SSB SPR40% (more conservative target reference point than SSB SPR30% ) of 19, and 24, lbs for the two methods (SEDAR 2011a). SSB SPR30% is the default target reference point for the Gulf of Mexico Reef Fish FMP (SEDAR 2011a). Since the stock assessment determined that golden tilefish in the Gulf of Mexico is not overfished with the stock biomass above target reference points, the abundance is of very low concern.

25 25 Factor Fishing Mortality Scoring Guidelines 5 (Very Low ) Highly likely that fishing mortality is below a sustainable level (e.g., below fishing mortality at maximum sustainable yield, FMSY), OR fishery does not target species and its contribution to the mortality of species is negligible ( 5% of a sustainable level of fishing mortality) (Low ) Probable (>50%) chance that fishing mortality is at or below a sustainable level, but some uncertainty exists, OR fishery does not target species and does not adversely affect species, but its contribution to mortality is not negligible, OR fishing mortality is unknown, but the population is healthy and the species has a low susceptibility to the fishery (low chance of being caught) (Moderate ) Fishing mortality is fluctuating around sustainable levels, OR fishing mortality is unknown and species has a moderate-high susceptibility to the fishery and, if species is depleted, reasonable management is in place. 1 (High ) Overfishing is occurring, but management is in place to curtail overfishing, OR fishing mortality is unknown, species is depleted, and no management is in place. 0 (Critical) Overfishing is known to be occurring and no reasonable management is in place to curtail overfishing. United States US Mid Atlantic, Longline, Bottom Low According to the 2014 ASAP stock assessment model the stock of golden tilefish in the Mid-Atlantic is not experiencing overfishing (Figure 12; SAW 2014). The estimated F was MT in 2012, while the target reference point (F MSY proxy = F 25% ) was The 2009 stock assessment also agreed that the stock is not experiencing overfishing (SAW 2009). The NMFS Summary of Stock Statuses states that this stock is not experiencing overfishing (NMFS 2014a). Although fishing mortality is below the target reference point (F 25%, corresponding to a target abundance of SSB 25% ), appropriate fishing mortality reference points for most species should be F 35 40%. Target reference points allowing for higher fishing mortality require strong scientific rationale, which is not provided in the stock assessments or other related documents. See the detailed rationale below for information how reference points were set for this stock.although the recent stock assessment declared that the stock is not experiencing overfishing (with fishing mortality below the target reference point), fishing mortality scores as "low concern" because it is uncertain whether the current F is below an appropriate level. Rationale: Rationale on how reference points were set, taken from the summary report of the 2014 stock

26 26 assessment: "From the base ASAP model, the average fishing mortality was 0.37 which corresponds to F 25% in a yieldper-recruit analysis.; therefore, F=0.37 was assumed as an F MSY proxy. Long term projections with fishing mortality held constant at the F MSY proxy=0.37 value and recruitment sampled from the estimated values across the entire time-series were used to establish an SSB MSY proxy of 5153 MT. The Panel accepted these BRP definitions. Since the golden tilefish stock has produced strong year classes under the 2002-present constant quota management regime, and the base ASAP model results indicated no signs of recent stock decline or collapse, these BRPs seemed reasonable and possibly conservative. Estimates of uncertainty for the BRPs were not provided." (SARC 2014) Figure 12. Fishing mortality of golden tilefish in the Mid-Atlantic from The dashed lines represent the 90% confidence interval while the red line is the estimated target reference point F MSY. Adapted from SAW United States Southeast Atlantic, Handline United States Southeast Atlantic, Longline, Bottom Very Low Golden tilefish in the US Southeast Atlantic is not experiencing overfishing (Figure 11; SEDAR 2011c). The exploitation status (F current- /F MSY ) was estimated at 0.36 (SEDAR 2011c). F current (geometric mean of F ) was estimated at 0.070, while the F MSY was estimated at (SEDAR 2011c).; therefore golden tilefish in the US Southeast Atlantic has a fishing mortality of very low concern. Rationale:

27 27 Figure 11. Fishing mortality (F/F MSY) of golden tilefish in the South Atlantic. F/F MSY of 1.0 is overfishing target. United States GOM, Longline, Bottom Low In the Gulf of Mexico golden tilefish is not experiencing overfishing (SEDAR 2011a). Reference points were calculated with two methods to represent between-model-uncertainty (SEDAR 2011a). F in 2009 (an average of ) was 1.00 for both estimation methods (SEDAR 2011a). In most runs this fishing mortality is below the estimated reference points F msy (F SPR30% ): 1.30 and 2.07, and F SPR40% : 0.62 and 1.02 (SEDAR 2011a). The exploitation status (F current /minimum fishing mortality threshold (MFMT)) was estimated at 0.49 and 0.78 using F SPR30% and 1.00 and 1.64 using F SPR40% (SEDAR 2011a). Based on the stock assessment s assertion that golden tilefish in the Gulf of Mexico is not experiencing overfishing and the uncertainty of the model, the fishing mortality is of low concern. Rationale:

28 28 The 2011 Gulf of Mexico tilefish assessment notes the following, which is a justification for the SFW low concern rather than very low concern score: "Gulf of Mexico tilefish is a data poor species, and suffers many of the problems that make assessments of data poor species so difficult. Data quality is the primary problem with this assessment. This can be seen specifically in the effect of the age composition data on the estimation of recruitment. Unless the recruitment SD parameter is used to constrain the model, current biomass estimates will often exceed virgin levels. The age composition data are not the only problematic data source in this assessment. The indices of abundance, particularly in the east, appear to track abundance trends that conflict with signals from the landings data. For these reasons, the Assessment Panel has recommended that management advice not be based solely on this assessment, but should take into account other information like expert opinion and knowledge of the tilefish fishery." (SEDAR 2011a)

29 29 Criterion 2: Impacts on Other Species All main retained and bycatch species in the fishery are evaluated in the same way as the species under assessment were evaluated in Criterion 1. Seafood Watch defines bycatch as all fisheries-related mortality or injury to species other than the retained catch. Examples include discards, endangered or threatened species catch, and ghost fishing. To determine the final Criterion 2 score, the score for the lowest scoring retained/bycatch species is multiplied by the discard rate score (ranges from 0-1), which evaluates the amount of non-retained catch (discards) and bait use relative to the retained catch. The Criterion 2 rating is determined as follows: Score >3.2=Green or Low Score >2.2 and <=3.2=Yellow or Moderate Score <=2.2=Red or High Rating is Critical if Factor 2.3 (Fishing Mortality) is Critical. Criterion 2 Summary The tables below list all main species assessed under Criterion 2. The lowest scoring main species is/are described in this section. These include Warsaw grouper, speckled hind, loggerhead turtle and southern hake. The remaining species assessed under Criterion 2 are described in Appendix A. Blueline tilefish: United States Gulf of Mexico, Handline Subscore:: Discard Rate: 0.95 C2 Rate: Species Inherent Vulnerability Abundance Fishing Mortality WARSAW GROUPER High 1.00: Very 1.00: High High SPECKLED HIND High 1.00: Very 2.33: High Moderate SNOWY GROUPER High 2.00: High 2.33: Moderate BLUELINE TILEFISH Medium 3.00: Moderate YELLOWEDGE GROUPER High 3.00: Moderate DUSKY SMOOTHHOUND (SMOOTH High DOGFISH) 2.00: High 2.33: Moderate 2.33: Moderate 3.67: Low Subscore

32 32 GOLDEN TILEFISH Medium 5.00: Very Low 5.00: Very Low Golden tilefish: United States Southeast Atlantic, Longline, Bottom Subscore:: Discard Rate: 0.95 C2 Rate: Species Inherent Vulnerability Abundance SOUTHERN HAKE Low 3.00: Moderate GOLDEN TILEFISH Medium 5.00: Very Low Fishing Mortality 3.67: Low 5.00: Very Low Subscore Golden tilefish: United States US Mid Atlantic, Longline, Bottom Subscore:: Discard Rate: 1.00 C2 Rate: Species Inherent Abundance Fishing Subscore Vulnerability Mortality GOLDEN TILEFISH Medium 4.00: Low 3.67: Low The main species for each fishery were determined based on the percent that each species represented of the total fishery s catch. The data to determine main species for the South Atlantic and the Gulf of Mexico are from small sets of observer data from the tilefish fisheries in these areas and include at risk species that are managed with the tilefish species or are endangered. Data for the Mid-Atlantic are from catch disposition from from Maine through Virginia. Dusky smoothhound, red snapper, snowy grouper, southern hake, and yellowedge grouper composed more than five percent of the total fishery catch for those fisheries they were included in. Loggerhead turtles are threatened on the ESA while speckled hind, and warsaw grouper are critically endangered according to the IUCN Red List. Speckled hind and Warsaw grouper are not included in golden tilefish fisheries based on habitat differences, but are included in the blueline tilefish fisheries based on distribution overlap. Warsaw grouper is not included in the South Atlantic blueline tilefish fishery based on low overlap of distribution; most of the blueline tilefish catch is from North Carolina, while the distribution of Warsaw grouper is more southern. Red grouper was greater than five percent of the total fishery catch in the Gulf of Mexico; however, it is the main target of shallow water longlines while both golden and blueline tilefish are targets of deep water longlines and; therefore not included in this report. The Seafood Watch report on grouper has a more extensive list of bycatch species because fishing occurs in both shallow and deep waters. Bottom longline and handline fisheries in the Mid- Atlantic, Southeast Atlantic, and Gulf of Mexico are category 3 fisheries under the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA; remote likelihood of/no known interactions) according to the List of Fisheries

Assessment Summary Report Gulf of Mexico Red Snapper SEDAR 7 Stock Distribution: Red snapper are found throughout the Gulf of Mexico, the Caribbean Sea, and from the U.S. Atlantic Coast to northern South

Purpose The purpose of this document is to improve the understanding and transparency of the Commission s stock assessment process and results. It is the first of several that will be developed throughout

Tab B, No. 6 06/04/13 Red Snapper Allocation Draft Options Paper for Amendment 28 to the Fishery Management Plan for the Reef Fish Resources of the Gulf of Mexico June 2013 This is a publication of the

Scoping Presentation for Amendment 43 to the Snapper Grouper Fishery Management Plan of the South Atlantic Region Red Snapper Management and Recreational Reporting Requirements in the South Atlantic Region

Sustainable Fisheries and Seafood in the Gulf of Mexico Damon C. Morris, Ph.D. Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries 1857: First Conservation Law in Louisiana Passed 1909: Louisiana Board of Commissioners

The Science of Rebuilding Fisheries: State of Play and Current issues Steve Murawski Director of Scientific Programs and Chief Science Advisor U.S. National Marine Fisheries Service OECD Workshop: Economics

The Common Wild Capture Fishery Methodology 1 Methodology developed with scientific advice from Thünen Institute of Baltic Sea Fisheries Version 4.01 Unit of Assessment Scientific Name English Name (FAO)

7 GULF OF ALASKA POLLOCK 7.1 Introduction For the Gulf of Alaska (GOA) pollock fishery, the Principle 1 and 2 PIs were mapped against the following indicators within the stated reports: FAM PI: Assessment

Tab B, No. 8 7/24/15 Modification to Gear Requirements for Yellowtail Snapper in the Gulf of Mexico Draft Framework Action to the Fishery Management Plan for Reef Fish Resources in the Gulf of Mexico August

NOAA s Role in Chesapeake Bay NOAA Chesapeake Bay Office Mission To understand, predict and explain changes in the Chesapeake Bay ecosystem, and to coordinate efforts to conserve and manage coastal and

The Fisheries Reform Act of 1997 The Joint Legislative Commission on Seafood and Aquaculture March 30, 2010 History July 1, 1994 Moratorium on Commercial Fishing Licenses Based on wide range of concerns

Gulf of Maine Research Institute Responsibly Harvested Seafood from the Gulf of Maine Region Report on Gulf of Maine/Georges Bank Redfish The fishery is managed by a competent authority and has a management

Irish Presidency of the Council of Fisheries Ministers of the European Union Ministerial & Stakeholders Conference Fast Tracking the Development of Environmental- Friendly Fishing Methods Norwegian efforts

Amendment 10 to the Fishery Management Plan for the Dolphin Wahoo Fishery of the Atlantic and Amendment 44 to the Fishery Management Plan for the Snapper Grouper Fishery of the South Atlantic Region July

Conservation of the marine environment Dr. Katrina Mangin Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology mangin@email.arizona.edu What are the threats to the oceans? Over-fishing & over-harvesting Climate

Sustainable Seafood Matching Overview: Students play a matching game to learn about different fish species and whether they are sustainably harvested. Ocean Literacy Principles: 5. The ocean supports a